The Heritage Foundation released an in-depth study of the financial impact on American families if a Medicare For All (M4A) plan was instituted. (here) Advocates of M4A have argued that the cost would be less than the average family now pays for health care. For most families, the reality is quite different.

The study’s authors looked at people in all of the various health insurance groups in the country. The only families that did better financially were those in Medicare where no one in the household worked. All other Americans paid more under a M4A system.

The key takeaways of the study were:

• Almost 75 percent of families would be worse off financially;
• All workers would have to pay a 21 percent payroll tax;
• Households that now had employer-paid health benefits would have $10,500 less disposable income each year;
• Households that now have a working member but no employer-paid health benefits would have $4,000 less disposable income each year;
• Families now on Medicaid would lose their free entitlement benefits. Medicaid families with at least one worker would have $5,600 less income each year because of payroll taxes.

Although many individuals now in Medicare would be better off financially, their timely access to health care would definitely be impacted. They would lose their exclusivity and would have to compete with all Americans for access.

The Heritage study should lay to rest the argument that M4A would either save money or would be financially neutral.